eGroup Archive

From: paul vandenbrink
Date: 2003-01-22 17:38:17 #
Subject: [shavian] Re: Greetings to a fellow Shavian.

Hi Star

Glad to see you back.
While you right that the Shaw keyboard mapping does perpetuate the
randomness
of a normal QWERTYUIOP keyboard, I still have to say that to someone
already familar with the QWERTYUIOP keyboard, it is a simple
logically sound extension of the Roman Alphabet keyboard.
For them, it is an easy way to get started writing Shaw letters.

Regards, Paul V.
--- In shavian@..., Star Raven <celestraof12worlds@y...>
wrote:
> I hate to seem a malcontent here, but NOT! The keyboard layout is
> strange and badly "related" to TO.
>
> IMHO there are better ways to do this, but that's just me...
>
> --Star
>
> --- "paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@s...>"
> <pvandenbrink@s...> wrote:
> > Hi Chris
> >
> > Glad to find a fellow Shaw Enthusiast. It just goes to prove
my
> > feeling that the Shavian Alphabet is woefully unpromoted. Even an
> > alphabet designer such as yourself only stumbles across the Shaw
> > Alphabet by accident. I hope you try it on the keyboard as well
as
> > just writing it, The keyboard layout for the Shaw Alphabet is
quite
> > logical and easy to learn. You just have to load down and add any
one
> >
> > of the many Shaw fonts to your Windows operating system.
> >
> > Regards, Paul V.
> >
> > P.S. The Shaw Alphabet has quite a complete set of phonemes and
makes
> >
> > a good starting point for any serious Al[abet design.
> >
> > P.P.S. Check out www.shavian.org for more info.
> > _______________attached______________________________________
> >
> > --- In shavian@..., gerald baker <glbaker50613@y...>
> > wrote:
> > > I read once that Shaw never learned to use a
> > > typewriter, but wrote all his plays in Pitman's
> > > shorthand. English, until recently, had very many
> > > local dialects. (In "Man & Superman," an American,
> > > Malone, considered 'Enry Straker as "a stupid
> > > Englishman who doesn't understand his own language."
> > > But Enry deliberately chose to use his lower-class
> > > dialect as a matter of pride.)
> > >
> > > Gerald Baker
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> > > http://mailplus.yahoo.com
> >
> >
>
>
> =====
> "Alright, enough with the storyline, let's get back to the monster
killing...Hello!"
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=241773.2861420.4212388.1925585/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1394044/R=0/*http://www.hgtv.com/hgtv/pac_ctnt/text/0,,HGTV_3936_5802,FF.html>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=241773.2861420.4212388.1925585/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1394044/rand=714777795>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

From: Star Raven
Date: 2003-01-22 19:39:23 #
Subject: Re: [shavian] Re: Greetings to a fellow Shavian.

Toggle Shavian

Thanks, paul, I've been lurking.

No, I've found that if we are going to try to eliminate the ackward use
of the roman alphabet for TO, then we should completely separate the
alphabet, I do have one proposed, and if I had the knack for alphabet
design, then i would implement it. In practice with substitution (i e,
typing as if the letters were by my keyboard layout) I found that the
learning curve was much faster for me, and I am not the fastest typest.

--Star

P.S. I'll try to post my layout later.

--- "paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@...>"
<pvandenbrink@...> wrote:
> Hi Star
>
> Glad to see you back.
> While you right that the Shaw keyboard mapping does perpetuate the
> randomness
> of a normal QWERTYUIOP keyboard, I still have to say that to someone
> already familar with the QWERTYUIOP keyboard, it is a simple
> logically sound extension of the Roman Alphabet keyboard.
> For them, it is an easy way to get started writing Shaw letters.
>
> Regards, Paul V.
> --- In shavian@..., Star Raven <celestraof12worlds@y...>
> wrote:
> > I hate to seem a malcontent here, but NOT! The keyboard layout is
> > strange and badly "related" to TO.
> >
> > IMHO there are better ways to do this, but that's just me...
> >
> > --Star

=====
"Alright, enough with the storyline, let's get back to the monster killing...Hello!"

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=241773.2861422.4212389.1925585/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1394044/R=0/*http://www.hgtv.com/hgtv/pac_ctnt/text/0,,HGTV_3936_5802,FF.html>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=241773.2861422.4212389.1925585/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1394044/rand=243094586>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

From: paul vandenbrink
Date: 2003-02-02 15:46:21 #
Subject: [shavian] Re: Greetings to a fellow Shavian.

Toggle Shavian

Hi Star and other people in Lurk mode
I was wondering if we could re-visit the question of having an
American subset of the Shaw Alphabet. I have had a discussion with
Hugh, and we thought to get things going in the U,S,A and abroad
and create more interest, we should make a small subset of the Shaw
Alphabet. Less than 40 letters. It would exclude all the Rhotic
letters and the Diagraphs (Ian, Yew) and put into practice some vowel
simplifications that I already discussed, as being insignificant in
American pronunciation.
I would like to call it the Concise American Shaw Alphabet or the
Introductory American Shaw Alphabet.
Any Objections or comments. I really would like to get some feedback.
It's your Alphabet too.

Regards, Paul V.

--- In shavian@..., Star Raven <celestraof12worlds@y...>
wrote:
> Thanks, paul, I've been lurking.
>
> No, I've found that if we are going to try to eliminate the ackward
use
> of the roman alphabet for TO, then we should completely separate the
> alphabet, I do have one proposed, and if I had the knack for
alphabet
> design, then i would implement it. In practice with substitution (i
e,
> typing as if the letters were by my keyboard layout) I found that
the
> learning curve was much faster for me, and I am not the fastest
typest.
>
> --Star
>
> P.S. I'll try to post my layout later.
>
> --- "paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@s...>"
> <pvandenbrink@s...> wrote:
> > Hi Star
> >
> > Glad to see you back.
> > While you right that the Shaw keyboard mapping does perpetuate
the
> > randomness
> > of a normal QWERTYUIOP keyboard, I still have to say that to
someone
> > already familar with the QWERTYUIOP keyboard, it is a simple
> > logically sound extension of the Roman Alphabet keyboard.
> > For them, it is an easy way to get started writing Shaw letters.
> >
> > Regards, Paul V.
> > --- In shavian@..., Star Raven
<celestraof12worlds@y...>
> > wrote:
> > > I hate to seem a malcontent here, but NOT! The keyboard layout
is
> > > strange and badly "related" to TO.
> > >
> > > IMHO there are better ways to do this, but that's just me...
> > >
> > > --Star
>
>
> =====
> "Alright, enough with the storyline, let's get back to the monster
killing...Hello!"
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=245327.2891370.4259126.1612068/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1430287/R=2/id=noscript/*http://www.poetry.com/contest/contest.asp?Suite=A33405>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=245327.2891370.4259126.1612068/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1430287/rand=953678297>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

From: Philip Newton
Date: 2003-02-02 17:45:32 #
Subject: Re: [shavian] Re: Greetings to a fellow Shavian.

Toggle Shavian

On 2 Feb 2003 at 15:46, paul vandenbrink pvandenbrink@... wrote:

> a small subset of the Shaw Alphabet. Less than 40 letters. It would
> exclude all the Rhotic letters

I would have thought that American, especially, would benefit from the
rhotic letters since all American varieties I am familiar with are
rhotic -- whereas my native speech is not rhotic, and would (I would
think) benefit more from chucking the rhotics if the Shaw alphabet is
meant to portray only my speech.

> some vowel simplifications that I already discussed, as being
> insignificant in American pronunciation.

The forward to _Androcles_ already allows that "the [...] characters of
the Shaw alphabet may faithfully portry the pronunciation of the
individual [...]. [... There is] no need to standardize writing if not
intended for publication [...]. [... B]y all means _write_ as you think
fit, and leave experts to standardize printers' spelling."

So if your pronunciation doesn't distinguish between two letters, feel
free to use only one. I'm not sure whether we need a subset of the Shaw
alphabet for this, as people can simply use any subset they are
comfortable with. (For example, I mostly use a subset which lacks
"Ian", since I'm not sure which words would use that sound.)

> I would like to call it the Concise American Shaw Alphabet or the
> Introductory American Shaw Alphabet.
> Any Objections or comments. I really would like to get some feedback.
> It's your Alphabet too.

One of the advantages of the Shaw alphabet is supposed to be ease of
reading. In that case, people learning such a subset would have to
learn the full alphabet as well if they wish to read material printed
in the "standard" spelling (which is called "particularly desirable
when that print is intended for circulation throughout the English-
speaking world"). I'm not sure whether it's worth learning two
alphabets: one for private use among friends to represent one's own
accent, and one for reading widely-published materials or the speech of
people from other English-speaking countries.

But you probably already guessed that :)

Cheers,
Philip
--
Philip Newton <Philip.Newton@...>

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=245327.2891370.4259126.1612068/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1430287/R=2/id=noscript/*http://www.poetry.com/contest/contest.asp?Suite=A33405>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=245327.2891370.4259126.1612068/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1430287/rand=605411622>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

From: Paul Gershon Vandenbrink
Date: 2003-02-03 06:19:52 #
Subject: [shavian] Greetings to a another fellow Shavian.

Toggle Shavian

Hi Philip

Thank-you for your prompt feedback.
Let me respond to 2 of your points, for the moment.
First, as for the 6 Rhotic letters, I chose to bypass in the Introductory
subset of Shaw letters for American English Speakers. I like to use them,
myself, but it took me couple of years to sort out how to use them in a
consistent and logical fashion according to my own pronunciation. Perhaps,
as you don't make use of them yourself, it is not a problem.
So I'd like to leave the use of the Rhotics until after the American
student has mastered the basic simple letters of the Shavian Alphabet.

Secondly, your misapprehension that teaching a subset for writing Shaw
would create difficulties for the student when they have to learn the full
Shavian alphabet to read printed material.
My experience is that the most difficult task to learn is how to write in
the "standard" spelling of the Shaw Alphabet, when there are
multiple spellings with acceptable pronunciations. Which one is right?
I would consult a dictionary, if there was one and it had a recognized
Alphabetic order. But there is not. Essentially, I had to work out my own
spelling standard for writing.
But when I am reading I need only process enough of the letters to
recognize the word. I don't have to sound it out in mind and assign
appropriate letters.
Variations in spelling or a relatively few additional letters (10 or less)
should not interfere with that essential word recognition.
I am certain we can set up a few tests and time the reading times to
demonstrate that those additional letters are inconsequential.
If we have enough variation in our speech community, we could also test
your other hypothesis that people from other English-speaking countries,
would have difficulties interpreting a local accent at variance from their own.
Say a Non-Rhotic English speaker writes to a Rhotic English Speaker.
I would be interested in the actual results.
Regards, Paul V.

At 06:45 PM 2/2/03 +0100, you wrote:
>One of the advantages of the Shaw alphabet is supposed to be ease of
>reading. In that case, people learning such a subset would have to
>learn the full alphabet as well if they wish to read material printed
>in the "standard" spelling (which is called "particularly desirable
>when that print is intended for circulation throughout the English-
>speaking world"). I'm not sure whether it's worth learning two
>alphabets: one for private use among friends to represent one's own
>accent, and one for reading widely-published materials or the speech of
>people from other English-speaking countries.

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=245327.2891370.4259126.1612068/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1430287/R=2/id=noscript/*http://www.poetry.com/contest/contest.asp?Suite=A33405>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=245327.2891370.4259126.1612068/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1430287/rand=463182685>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

From: embryomystic@...
Date: 2003-02-03 06:26:47 #
Subject: RE: [shavian] Re: Greetings to a fellow Shavian.

Toggle Shavian

Remember, though, that there are non-Rhotic American accents as well. Ever been to Boston?

I.M. Davis

> ** Original Subject: RE: [shavian] Re: Greetings to a fellow Shavian.
> ** Original Sender: "paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@...>" <pvandenbrink@...>
> ** Original Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 10:46:20 -0500 (EST)

> ** Original Message follows...

>
> <html><body>
>
>
> <tt>
> Hi Star and other people in Lurk mode 
> I was wondering if we could re-visit the question of having an 
> American subset of the Shaw Alphabet. I have had a discussion with 
> Hugh, and we thought to get things going in the U,S,A and abroad 
> and create more interest, we should make a small subset of the Shaw 
> Alphabet. Less than 40 letters. It would exclude all the Rhotic 
> letters and the Diagraphs (Ian, Yew) and put into practice some vowel 
> simplifications that I already discussed, as being insignificant in 
> American pronunciation. 
> I would like to call it the Concise American Shaw Alphabet or the 
> Introductory American Shaw Alphabet. 
> Any Objections or comments. I really would like to get some feedback. 
> It's your Alphabet too. 
> 
> Regards, Paul V. 
> 
> --- In shavian@..., Star Raven <celestraof12worlds@y...> 
> wrote: 
> > Thanks, paul, I've been lurking. 
> > 
> > No, I've found that if we are going to try to eliminate the ackward 
> use 
> > of the roman alphabet for TO, then we should completely separate the 
> > alphabet, I do have one proposed, and if I had the knack for 
> alphabet 
> > design, then i would implement it. In practice with substitution (i 
> e, 
> > typing as if the letters were by my keyboard layout) I found that 
> the 
> > learning curve was much faster for me, and I am not the fastest 
> typest. 
> > 
> > --Star 
> > 
> > P.S. I'll try to post my layout later. 
> > 
> > --- "paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@s...>" 
> > <pvandenbrink@s...> wrote: 
> > > Hi Star 
> > > 
> > > Glad to see you back. 
> > > While you right that the Shaw keyboard mapping does perpetuate 
> the 
> > > randomness 
> > > of a normal QWERTYUIOP keyboard, I still have to say that to 
> someone 
> > > already familar with the QWERTYUIOP keyboard, it is a simple 
> > > logically sound extension of the Roman Alphabet keyboard. 
> > > For them, it is an easy way to get started writing Shaw letters. 
> > > 
> > > Regards, Paul V. 
> > > --- In shavian@..., Star Raven 
> <celestraof12worlds@y...> 
> > > wrote: 
> > > > I hate to seem a malcontent here, but NOT! The keyboard layout 
> is 
> > > > strange and badly "related" to TO. 
> > > > 
> > > > IMHO there are better ways to do this, but that's just me... 
> > > > 
> > > > --Star 
> > 
> > 
> > ===== 
> > "Alright, enough with the storyline, let's get back to the monster 
> killing...Hello!" 
> > 
> > __________________________________________________ 
> > Do you Yahoo!? 
> > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. 
> > <a href="http://mailplus.yahoo.com">http://mailplus.yahoo.com</a> 
> 
> </tt>
>
> 
>
> 
>
> <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
> <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
> <td align=center>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor</td>
> </tr>
> <tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
> <td align=center width=470><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr><td align=center>ADVERTISEMENT 
> <script language=JavaScript>
> var lrec_target="_top";
> var lrec_URL = new Array();
> lrec_URL[1] = "http://rd.yahoo.com/M=245327.2891370.4259126.1612068/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1430287/R=0/id=flashurl/*http://www.poetry.com/contest/contest.asp?Suite=A33405";
> var link="javascript:LRECopenWindow(1)";
> var lrec_flashfile = 'http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/1-/flash/intl_library_of_poetry/yahoo_300x250.swf?clickTAG='+link+'';
> var lrec_altURL = "http://rd.yahoo.com/M=245327.2891370.4259126.1612068/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1430287/R=1/id=altimgurl/*http://www.poetry.com/contest/contest.asp?Suite=A33405";
> var lrec_altimg = "http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/1-/flash/intl_library_of_poetry/yahoo_300x250.gif";
> var lrec_width = 300;
> var lrec_height = 250;
> </script>
> <script language=JavaScript src=http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/1-/jscodes/072002/ct_lrec_072002.js>
> </script>
> <noscript>
> <a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=245327.2891370.4259126.1612068/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1430287/R=2/id=noscript/*http://www.poetry.com/contest/contest.asp?Suite=A33405" target=_top><img
> src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/1-/flash/intl_library_of_poetry/yahoo_300x250.gif" width=300 height=250 border=0></a>
> </noscript>
> </td></tr></table></td>
> </tr>
> <tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1 src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=245327.2891370.4259126.1612068/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1430287/rand=953678297"></td></tr>
> </table>
>
> 
>
>
>
> 
> <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service</a>.</tt>
> 
>
> </body></html>

>** --------- End Original Message ----------- **

>

---

"A witty saying proves nothing."
~Voltaire

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=245327.2891370.4259126.1612068/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1430287/R=2/id=noscript/*http://www.poetry.com/contest/contest.asp?Suite=A33405>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=245327.2891370.4259126.1612068/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1430287/rand=651084529>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

From: Scott Stephens
Date: 2003-02-03 07:08:23 #
Subject: [shavian] Re: Greetings to a fellow Shavian.

Toggle Shavian

I would have thought that rhotic forms would be an advantage to
rhotic groups rather than non-rhotic groups. When someone wanted to
write "bird", for example, rhotic groups would be tempted to write "b-
ih-r-d" while rhotic groups might write "b-uh-d". There would be a
strong divergance between rhotic and non-rhotic speakers. Keep the
rhotic forms, then bird could always be spelt "b-ih+r-d", but
pronounced with or without the "r" in speech, (but the subtle
understanding that the "r" is there and important to the word.

Making the number of letters smaller isn't always good. The current
spelling list only has 26 letters, but ... (I'm currently digging
through some text-to-speech code to automate shavian spelling
decisions) ... requires some 10,000 rules that can be used to figure
out how to pronounce only half of our vocabulary, or unknown words,
the other half has to be memorized. Our brains apparently handle
these rules just fine. Being able to handle 40 letters is much
easier than having to remember rhotic and non-rhotic spelling in
order to read different texts.

I guess I'm on the side of wanting the language to be somewhat
standardized.

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=245327.2891370.4259126.1612068/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1430287/R=2/id=noscript/*http://www.poetry.com/contest/contest.asp?Suite=A33405>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=245327.2891370.4259126.1612068/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1430287/rand=240171711>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

From: Hugh Birkenhead
Date: 2003-02-03 11:40:01 #
Subject: Re: [shavian] Re: Greetings to a fellow Shavian.

Toggle Shavian

----- Original Message -----
From: Philip Newton <mailto:philip.newton@...>
To: shavian@... <mailto:shavian@...>
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: [shavian] Re: Greetings to a fellow Shavian.

On 2 Feb 2003 at 15:46, paul vandenbrink pvandenbrink@... <mailto:pvandenbrink@...> wrote:

> a small subset of the Shaw Alphabet. Less than 40 letters. It would
> exclude all the Rhotic letters

I would have thought that American, especially, would benefit from the
rhotic letters since all American varieties I am familiar with are
rhotic -- whereas my native speech is not rhotic, and would (I would
think) benefit more from chucking the rhotics if the Shaw alphabet is
meant to portray only my speech.

Hi Philip. Firstly, the cut version of Shavian is not really meant to be an American-specific subset of Shavian - it is merely meant to remove those vowel characters that cause continuing problems with those speaking US-Eng.

The reason rhotic vowels were dropped was because they aren't necessary. You can easily write vowel+r just easily as you can write vowel + any other consonant. Quikscript already allows this.

> some vowel simplifications that I already discussed, as being
> insignificant in American pronunciation.

The forward to _Androcles_ already allows that "the [...] characters of
the Shaw alphabet may faithfully portry the pronunciation of the
individual [...]. [... There is] no need to standardize writing if not
intended for publication [...]. [... B]y all means _write_ as you think
fit, and leave experts to standardize printers' spelling."

But this is nothing to do with Androcles. Androcles introduced Shavian to the world, but it is not the guide to how it should be treated forever after.

The Shavian of the here and now must NOT create excessive spelling conflicts on both sides of the Atlantic. Removing the subtler distinctions removes most possibility of confusion. The 'ah'/'on' distinction is frequently cited by US-Eng speakers as being simply incomprehensible without resorting to older dictionaries or even British ones. No matter how many rules we come up with describing when to use either, it doesn't work. Americans DON'T distinguish between long and short vowels, as we in this country do.

There are only two options if the alphabet is to be one of GLOBAL representation, not regional accent preservation:
1) Let Shavian embody vowel length, as it currently does, and make it difficult to write (resulting in spelling conflicts) if you do not understand vowel length
2) Remove vowel length from Shavian, and let Shavian offer a compromise between major dialects rather than a straight choice of either (its current bias is towards vowel length, i.e. Brit-Eng)

I chose to remove vowel length for the revision. This way, Shavian writing can be easily written by speakers of either dialect.

So if your pronunciation doesn't distinguish between two letters, feel
free to use only one. I'm not sure whether we need a subset of the Shaw
alphabet for this, as people can simply use any subset they are
comfortable with. (For example, I mostly use a subset which lacks
"Ian", since I'm not sure which words would use that sound.)

But which one should people choose? This choice of letters causes unnecessary spelling conflicts. The aim of Shavian, as I see it anyway, should be to limit the choice to only one letter. At least then everyone will be able to say "the phoneme I used there was the only one that sounds anything like the sound I hear". Right now, while Brit-Eng speakers have an easy time, US-Eng speakers have too many choices: 'ah' or 'on', 'array' or 'err', 'up'+'roll' or 'err' OR 'array', 'egg'+'roll' or 'air'... What this plethora of choices can only mean is excessive spelling variations where there need be none.

'Ah' or 'on'? = 'Ah'.
'Array' or 'err'? = 'Ado' + 'roll'.
'Up'+'roll' or 'err' or 'array'? = 'Ado' + 'roll', as above.
'Egg'+'roll' or 'air'? = 'Egg' + 'roll'.

The cut Shaw Alphabet only allows one choice in each instance. Goodbye, unnecessary spelling variations.

If a Brit-Eng speaker writes "top" and "palm", he will use 'ah' both times. So will a US-Eng speaker. There can be no other alternative letter to use. The subtle distinction for the Brit-Eng speaker is blurred, (though it does not make either word incomprehensible), but it allows him to write the same as the US-Eng speaker without even knowing how the US-Eng speaker speaks.

If a Brit-Eng speaker writes "last", "past", "half", "grass", etc., he already has the choice to either speak 'southern' or speak 'northern'. To speak 'northern' would be to use the same phoneme in the above words as the US-Eng speaker would use as well. So in these cases, the best option is for the Brit-Eng speaker to write 'northern'. This would also preserve the distinction between "lost" and "last" (i.e. "lyst" and "lAst").

> I would like to call it the Concise American Shaw Alphabet or the
> Introductory American Shaw Alphabet.
> Any Objections or comments. I really would like to get some feedback.
> It's your Alphabet too.

One of the advantages of the Shaw alphabet is supposed to be ease of
reading. In that case, people learning such a subset would have to
learn the full alphabet as well if they wish to read material printed
in the "standard" spelling (which is called "particularly desirable
when that print is intended for circulation throughout the English-
speaking world"). I'm not sure whether it's worth learning two
alphabets: one for private use among friends to represent one's own
accent, and one for reading widely-published materials or the speech of
people from other English-speaking countries.

Yes, Shaw is supposed to be easy to read. The cut version does not compromise this assertion. What it does do is make it easier to write. After all, what reading can you do until something is written?

Bear in mind here that there is little published material already. Any material on-line coded in the 'standard' alphabet can easily be altered to comply with the cut version. After all, it introduces no new phonemes, it just consolidates existing ones and removes ligatures. Find+replace all 'on's with 'ah's, find+replace all 'err's with 'ado'+'roll', Etc.

I am fine with writing according to accent for private conversation. What is within our grasp with the cut alphabet, however, is the ability to make private writings look little different from public writings. It can only help people write globally rather than have them learn a two-tier alphabet, or one alphabet for private and one alphabet for global communication.

There will still be spelling variations. I don't deny this. But those are instances where simple differences of basic phonemes used occur, such as in "cArry" (either "kArI" or "kerI") and "fOrest" (either "fyrast" or "fYrast"). The way cut Shavian is arranged, if these vowels (ash/egg and ah/awe) are interchanged, the words still look so similar to each other (simple glyph reversals in both cases) that speed of reading is not impaired.

Check out the table on the Shavian forum titled 'Shavian 2000?'. See how well you can write in in it. I strongly believe it works.

Hugh B

From: Newton, Philip
Date: 2003-02-03 11:53:10 #
Subject: Re: [shavian] Re: Greetings to a fellow Shavian.

Toggle Shavian

Hugh Birkenhead wrote:
> If a Brit-Eng speaker writes "top" and "palm", he will use
> 'ah' both times. So will a US-Eng speaker. There can be no
> other alternative letter to use. The subtle distinction for
> the Brit-Eng speaker is blurred, (though it does not make
> either word incomprehensible)

Someone knowing the current version of Shavian and speaking (non-rhotic)
Brit-Eng might be inclined to read the "ah" version of the first word as
"tarp" (short for "tarpaulin").

But if rhotics are always indicated in writing, then that possibility of
reading would be taken away; only "top" remains.

I concur that it would probably indeed be comprehensible.

That doesn't mean I have to like it :). Maybe I'll change my mind later,
though.

Cheers,
Philip
--
Philip Newton <Philip.Newton@...>
All opinions are my own, not my employer's.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=245327.2891370.4259126.1612068/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1430287/R=2/id=noscript/*http://www.poetry.com/contest/contest.asp?Suite=A33405>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=245327.2891370.4259126.1612068/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1430287/rand=487466462>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

From: Hugh Birkenhead
Date: 2003-02-03 12:07:31 #
Subject: Re: [shavian] Re: Greetings to a fellow Shavian.

Shavian eGroup Archive Browser